The Nsw Government And Medically Supervised Injecting Centre

Several studies have shown that injection drug users lower their risk of transmitting infectious diseases when there is a needle exchange program available. There has not been a valid study of whether or not the amounts of time needles are returned to the exchange programs are harmful to communities. The Journal of Public Health, conducted surveys, evidence from needle exchange sites, jails, and institutions that needle exchange programs are effective in reducing illnesses such as HIV and AIDS (Burt & Theide, 2016). Furthermore, Reepalu, Blome, Bjork, Widell, & Bjorkman (2012), researched the same individuals for 20 years, with no breaks. Their studies concluded that injection drug use, not only heightens the risk for HIV and AID’s, there is also an increase in Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C. However, there studies showed that there is not an increase rate of cancer diagnoses due to injection drug use. In a study conducted by Bonar and Rosenberg (2014), they wanted to see if self-initiated harm strategies, such as: proper needle sterilization techniques, proper disposal of needles, and cleaning of the pre injected skin, could help improve the health of those that use drugs intravenously. Their study was conducted over an eight-month period, results showed that their

Vancouver Injection Drug User Study (VIDUS) is a project that gives a prospective study and has over 1500 IDU 's enlisted to assist since 1996 and gathers data on drug use, health, sexual activity, etc. Some of the topics discussed included: prison culture, availability and price of drugs and equipment, drug use, VIDUS shows that the risk of HIV infection indicated that incarcerated injection drug users were associated with a greater risk of 2.7 times (Small, Kain, Laliberte, Schechter, O 'Shaughnessy & Spittal, 2005).

Canadian society has always dealt with some percentage of the population who have become addicted to intravenous drugs. Left unchecked, the ecology of IV drug use creates a number of societal issues as well as a greater burden to the already over-stretched Canadian healthcare system. Legally and financially supporting safe injection sites is just a matter of simple economics.

Although these clients will still be abusing illegal substances, Sheon (2004) indicated that any reduction of harm is a step in the right direction, and the amount of success is measured by the client’s quality of life and well-being (as cited in Brown et al., 2005). “Harm reduction is about being respectful in somebody else’s world” (Georgina Perry, Service manager and co-author, England as cited in Cusick et al., 2010). By not respecting somebody else’s choices, the clients feel they must lie about their unhealthy lifestyles, which prevents the clients from getting assistance because they were trying to protect themselves from the real situation (Georgina Perry, Service manager and co-author, England as cited in Cusick et al., 2010). A way to reduce the harm from illegal substance abuse is clean needle exchange, and teaching clients how to properly inject themselves (Brown et al., 2005). The needle exchange is a program where clients exchange their used needles for clean ones, which helps reduce the spread of diseases such as HIV/AIDS (Brown et al., 2005). With continuation of these programs the harm from abusing illegal substances is reduced and the spread of life threatening diseases, such as HIV,

Safe injection sites are places where chronic users of drugs such as morphine, cocaine, and heroin can go to inject drugs in a safe and sanitary environment. The site itself does not supply the drugs, but offers addiction and mental health treatment, first aid in case of overdose or injury, and sanitary means to inject drugs safely. These sites apply what is known as the harm reduction model. In her

Outcome 1 – Understand the legislative framework for the use of medication in social care settings.

Results of safe injection site studies have shown that an expansion may have a greater impact. This may reduce the chance of dangerous encounters between users of these safe injection sites and the public. Children not even out of elementary school, were getting involved in the drug scene. These runaways were a concern to the residents, who witnessed overdoses in the past decade. Over 2,000 lives were lost due to the Downtowns East side’s “drug-fuelled spiral” (MacQueen et al., 2003). Persisting the safe injection site can help in lowering risk behaviors by the drug users of SIS’s and community concerns that are related to public injection of drugs (McKnight et al,. 2007). Overall, SIS’s may have the ability to change the drug users and transform them into potential productive members of society.

Imagine for a moment being able to walk down the street without seeing used needles or other drug equipment. Although it will not completely eradicate the problem, safe injection sites will allow users to have a safe and clean environment that they do not have access to now; not just to inject their drugs, but also to dispose of their used syringes. When given a 3-year trial at the first facility in Canada, it was found that fatal overdoses within 500 metres of the facility were reduced by 35 percent, and a 9 percent decrease in the rest of the city (Stueck, 2011). Thus proving the effectiveness of injection facilities not only in Vancouver, but nationwide. Giving access to support can significantly increase the quality of life for intravenous drug users. By providing sterile equipment the

There are many ways in which people who are addicted to intravenous drugs are perceived by our society. People sometimes believe the addicted person is to blame for their circumstance and substance dependence and some feel serious drug addicts are a “lost cause” due to a lack of values or flawed character. “Persons who struggle with addictions often are depicted as criminals or prostitutes, weak, lazy and morally corrupt” (Bartlett, R., Brown, L., Shattell, M., Wright, T., Lewallen, L. (2013). These stereotypes paint people with addiction negatively; a percentage of people who live with serious addiction are capable of recovery with the right attitude, support and healthcare. Street level healthcare services such as; safe injection sites, provide accessable resources at street level for people to make the choice to live healthier lifestyles. Govement funding and support is needed to make these projects possible to improve the health of Canadians. Safe injection sites are proven to be positive contributions to communities, save lives, reduce harm and open doors towards recovery for people from the grip of addiction.

There are no “safe heroin injection sites.” The only “safe” approach to heroin is to not take it. For addicts, the humane public health response is to help them get and stay sober, or at the very least, opioid replacement therapy in sustained treatment. Any approach without these goals is cruel and dehumanizing- not healing, but perpetuating harm. (Walter 2)

Harm reduction can be defined as an approach that aims to reduce the consequences of high risk behaviours such as injection drug use on the individual and on society as a whole. Harm reduction programs provide injection drug users with access to a clean injection environment, sterile injections, drug-preparation equipment and safe disposal of contaminated material at the time of injection. Staff members in harm reduction facilities provide health teaching, anonymous HIV testing, information on addiction treatment, condoms and assist in connecting clients to social and health services (Semaan et al., 2011; Ball, 2007). Although, the benefits of harm reduction are evident through reduction of accidental drug overdose and prevention of

202). SIS provides an upstream approach thanks to investing in solving the current complications of IDUs. Overdoses are one of the high-risk problems when working with IDUs. Marshall et al. recorded that “[b]etween Jan 1, 2001, and Dec 31, 2005, 290 accidental illicit drug overdoses occurred within the city boundaries of Vancouver—an average of 1·1 per week” (1432). With SIS, the lack of understanding can first be addressed, followed by the precautions and knowledge the individuals can take away to prevent an overdose occurring personally or to another individual. Resources and support are available from the staff working at SIS, which would be lost without these injection sites creating relationships with health care workers. With the capability for healthcare providers to interact with this population, the ability to directly improve individual lives, and progress quality of life is researched and argued by authorities on the matter to occur.

Needle exchange programs have long been a controversial subject with both the general population and government lawmakers. The primary objective for needle exchange programs (NEPs) is to prevent the spread of blood-borne disease and is very successful in doing so. But, issues of morality due to the perception of drug enablement and the stigma of intravenous drug users (IDUs) and their potential effects on the decline of society are continually used as arguments for those against NEPs. It has been proven through many studies that these programs not only reduce harms associated with intravenous drug use, they are also cost effective and reduce the circulation of used syringes to the general population. Beyond epidemiological efforts, NEPs also provide a de-stigmatized center for gathering and offers health services such as HIV testing, counselling and referrals to treatment for drug addiction. This paper aims to highlight the efficacy of needle exchange programs, safe injection sites and address the social and political issues associated with them.

The city of Vancouver has been known to have a drug issue, more specifically in the downtown eastside area, which holds one of the most unwealtiest and oldest neighbourhoods in Canada. While British Columbia has an estimate of 20,000 injection drug users who are pronounced to be in poverty, have a mental illness, and be homeless (Jozaghi, & Andresen, 2013: 1). In efforts to reduce this drug problem, the city developed a plan using a four-pillar approach that focuses on enforcement, harm reduction, treatment, and prevention (Schaefer & Haaland, 2014: 242). Schaefer & Haaland (2014: 242) explain each portion of this plan: the enforcement component consists of a trail court which varies out the options for drug treatment, the police aiming for

Drug legalization is an enduring question that presently faces our scholars. This issue embraces two positions: drugs should not be legalized and drugs should be legalized. These two positions contain an array of angles that supports each issue. This brief of the issues enables one to consider the strengths and weakness of each argument, become aware of the grounds of disagreement and agreement and ultimately form an opinion based upon the positions stated within the articles. In the article “Against the Legalization of Drugs”, by James Q. Wilson, the current status of drugs is supported. Wilson believes if a drug such as heroin were legalized there would be no financial or medical reason to avoid heroin usage;